Crooked Solicitor9

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=90 BGCOLOR="#006699" TEXT="#080000" background="154fd5a3.jpg"> <div> <FONT SIZE="6" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><B>Phoney Titles of Nobility: British Feudal Investments, Ltd. Exposed</B></FONT><B>    </B><B> |  </B></div> <div> <A HREF="id48.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="News"><U>News</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id47.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Summary of Theft"><U>Summary of Theft</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id54.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Boadas Foul and Deceitful Claim"><U>Boada's Foul and Deceitful Claim</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id55.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Core Issue"><U>Core Issue</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id58.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Answer"><U>The Answer</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id19.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Website1"><U>Website1</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id20.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Website2"><U>Website2</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id21.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Revealing Article"><U>Revealing Article</U></A>   |   <A HREF="antony_boada.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Deceptions1"><U>Deceptions1</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id25.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Deceptions2"><U>Deceptions2</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id40.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Deceptions3"><U>Deceptions3</U></A>   |   <A HREF="antony_boada1a.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Scams1"><U>Scams1</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id27.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Scams2"><U>Scams2</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id29.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Scams3"><U>Scams3</U></A>   |   <A HREF="antony_boada___roger_pitts_tucker.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Proof of Fraud"><U>Proof of Fraud</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id34.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Accomplice1"><U>Accomplice1</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id50.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Accomplice2"><U>Accomplice2</U></A>   |   <A HREF="antony_boada26.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Fake Titles"><U>Fake Titles</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id45.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="New Discoveries1"><U>New Discoveries1</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id51.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="New Discoveries2"><U>New Discoveries2</U></A>   |   <A HREF="roger_anthony_pitt_tucker.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor1"><U>Crooked Solicitor1</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id46.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor2"><U>Crooked Solicitor2</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id62.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor3"><U>Crooked Solicitor3</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id63.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor4"><U>Crooked Solicitor4</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id64.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor5"><U>Crooked Solicitor5</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id65.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor6"><U>Crooked Solicitor6</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id67.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor7"><U>Crooked Solicitor7</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id66.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor8"><U>Crooked Solicitor8</U></A>   |   <B>Crooked Solicitor9</B>   |   <A HREF="id69.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor10"><U>Crooked Solicitor10</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id70.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor11"><U>Crooked Solicitor11</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id71.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor12"><U>Crooked Solicitor12</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id72.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor13"><U>Crooked Solicitor13</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id73.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor14"><U>Crooked Solicitor14</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id74.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor15"><U>Crooked Solicitor15</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id75.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor16"><U>Crooked Solicitor16</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id76.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor 17"><U>Crooked Solicitor 17</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id77.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor18"><U>Crooked Solicitor18</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id78.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor19"><U>Crooked Solicitor19</U></A>   |   <A HREF="irish_and_english_baronies.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Selling the Forbidden"><U>Selling the Forbidden</U></A>   |   <A HREF="antony_boada___roger_pitts_tucker24.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Challenge"><U>The Challenge</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id60.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Declaration of Ownership"><U>Declaration of Ownership</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id57.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Diversion Tactics"><U>Diversion Tactics</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id42.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Reactions"><U>Reactions</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id33.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Disclaimer"><U>Disclaimer</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id23.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Contact "><U>Contact </U></A>   |   <A HREF="id44.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Index"><U>Index</U></A></div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=210 BGCOLOR="#FFCC66" TEXT="#080000" background="155d2b03.jpg"> <div> <IMG SRC="157ae6c0.jpg" border=0 width="174" height="108" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <div> <B>Justice is one of the greatest and most beautiful things next to life itself and the glorious principle of freedom.</B></div> <div> <B>This website is dedicated to bring some very despicable men to justice.</B></div> </td> <td valign="top" height=390 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> Crooked Solicitor9</div> <div> <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Phoney Titles of Nobility: British Feuda"><U>Home</U></A>  <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >I </FONT><A HREF="id48.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="News"><U>News</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id47.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Summary of Theft"><U>Summary of Theft</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id54.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Boadas Foul and Deceitful Claim"><U>Boada's Foul and Deceitful Claim</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id55.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Core Issue"><U>Core Issue</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id58.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Answer"><U>The Answer</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id19.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Website1"><U>Website1</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id20.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Website2"><U>Website2</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id21.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Revealing Article"><U>Revealing Article</U></A>   |   <A HREF="antony_boada.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Deceptions1"><U>Deceptions1</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id25.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Deceptions2"><U>Deceptions2</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id40.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Deceptions3"><U>Deceptions3</U></A>   |   <A HREF="antony_boada1a.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Scams1"><U>Scams1</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id27.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Scams2"><U>Scams2</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id29.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Scams3"><U>Scams3</U></A>   |   <A HREF="antony_boada___roger_pitts_tucker.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Proof of Fraud"><U>Proof of Fraud</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id34.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Accomplice1"><U>Accomplice1</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id50.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Accomplice2"><U>Accomplice2</U></A>   |   <A HREF="antony_boada26.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Fake Titles"><U>Fake Titles</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id45.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="New Discoveries1"><U>New Discoveries1</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id51.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="New Discoveries2"><U>New Discoveries2</U></A>   |   <A HREF="roger_anthony_pitt_tucker.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor1"><U>Crooked Solicitor1</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id46.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor2"><U>Crooked Solicitor2</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id62.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor3"><U>Crooked Solicitor3</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id63.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor4"><U>Crooked Solicitor4</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id64.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor5"><U>Crooked Solicitor5</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id65.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor6"><U>Crooked Solicitor6</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id67.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor7"><U>Crooked Solicitor7</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id66.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor8"><U>Crooked Solicitor8</U></A>   |   <B>Crooked Solicitor9</B>   |   <A HREF="id69.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor10"><U>Crooked Solicitor10</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id70.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor11"><U>Crooked Solicitor11</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id71.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor12"><U>Crooked Solicitor12</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id72.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor13"><U>Crooked Solicitor13</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id73.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor14"><U>Crooked Solicitor14</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id74.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor15"><U>Crooked Solicitor15</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id75.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor16"><U>Crooked Solicitor16</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id76.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor 17"><U>Crooked Solicitor 17</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id77.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor18"><U>Crooked Solicitor18</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id78.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor19"><U>Crooked Solicitor19</U></A>   |   <A HREF="irish_and_english_baronies.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Selling the Forbidden"><U>Selling the Forbidden</U></A>   |   <A HREF="antony_boada___roger_pitts_tucker24.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Challenge"><U>The Challenge</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id60.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Declaration of Ownership"><U>Declaration of Ownership</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id57.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Diversion Tactics"><U>Diversion Tactics</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id42.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Reactions"><U>Reactions</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id33.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Disclaimer"><U>Disclaimer</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id23.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Contact "><U>Contact </U></A>   |   <A HREF="id44.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Index"><U>Index</U></A></div> <bR> <div> <B>If you have been victimize by any of these despicable men, Antonio A. Boada, Mark T. Williams or Roger Pitts-Tucker, go to "</B><A HREF="id58.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Answer"><U><B>The Answer</B></U></A><B>" and learn how you can join in a class action suit against them.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>*************************************</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>FRAUD</B></div> <bR> <div> January 12, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Dear Mr. Pitts-Tucker,</div> <bR> <div> I realize that you have already confessed your guilt that the titles were just "<B>name[s]</B>" or like a “<B>copyright</B>” or “<B>personal or moveable property</B>” and not real or genuine <B>feudal titles</B> of nobility or <B>feudal property</B> or <B>incorporeal hereditaments</B> that needed to be conveyed via the <B>law of real property</B>. And that you knew that this was the case and has always been the case with you and Mr. Boada’s former solicitors, such that you <B>"knowingly and wilfully" </B>participated in fraud. </div> <bR> <div> However, I get the impression that you spilled the beans inadvertently; or, in other words, you let the cat out of the bag by mistake as you were merely trying to justify not having to "<B>deduce title</B>" or be subject to the requirements of the <B>Law of Property Act</B>, which was designed to ensure the buyers received “<B>good title.</B>”</div> <bR> <div> Therefore, unless you openly and honestly own up to fraud and take responsibility for your reprobate actions, I must demand that you fulfill your firms "<B>undertaking</B>" to me to provide the documents that prove that the Imperial family actually sold the title rather than this being merely another feature of the scam that you apparently knew all about and were in on. Remember you stated to the Law Society in your <B>September 29, 2003 </B>letter that the "<B>name</B>" sale scheme was your client’s common practice, which they did both with you and their former solicitors. </div> <bR> <div> To help you realize that you really don’t have a leg to stand on in terms of a defense. I will introduce more contradictions and evidence of fraud, which you were involved in and apparently from you own words---you knew from the very beginning. </div> <bR> <div> First, I need to make a correction. In my last letter I wrote, that in the <B>June 2000 Statutory Declaration</B>, it stated that it was “’<B>duly executed in accordance with the laws of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and Her Majesty’s Other Realms and Possession Beyond the Seas’ not the laws of Germany.</B>” I looked this up and found it was in reference to the law that allowed statutory declarations and had nothing to do with the laws used to transfer the title or titles. However, in other places and times, you made it clear that it was English law, not German law, which was used to sell the titles.</div> <bR> <div> In your <B>April 27, 2001 </B>letter to my temporary Pre-Paid legal attorney, Barry J. Marcus, Esq., you declared, “<B>The sale of the Feudal Principality of Halberstadt was made under English law</B>” and “<B>You will appreciate that such a sale is made under English law. . . .</B>” (The Law Society has copies of these letters) In writing Mr. Branscum, one of the investigators, on <B>August 17, 2001</B>, you stated that, “<B>The sale of the Principality was conducted in accordance with English law and hence there is no jurisdiction in the United States.</B>” (The Law Society has a copy of this letter) Here you contradict yourself, because in your <B>September 29, 2003</B> defense letter to the Law Society, you stated that the “<B>transaction</B>” was according to German law. This idea is completely out of sync with your earlier statements and your client’s website. I believe it is just another ploy to try to get out of the idea that “<B>the sale of the Feudal Principality of Halberstadt was made under English Law,</B>” because, if it was, you were obligated to provide evidence of “<B>good title.</B>” </div> <bR> <div> As an added witness that everything, from start to finish, was by English law, Margaret F. Montalvo, as Mr. Boada’s Florida attorney wrote for and in his behalf on <B>December 16, 2002</B> that:</div> <bR> <div> <B>With respect to jurisdiction, BFI’s place of business is England. That is where the company maintains its office and staff. All transactions take place in Europe. For the most part, the titles of nobility which BFI assists in transacting are European. Research as to titles which the client wishes to acquire is done in England. The solicitors validate the titles in England. The titles are issued and mailed out from England to the client’s address of choice. . . . Pitts-Tucker & Co., which is a firm of solicitors, handled all legal transaction from start to finish.</B> (The Law Society has a copy of this letter)</div> <bR> <div> Note in the statement you made, which was that “<B>The sale of the Feudal Principality of Halberstadt was made under English law,</B>”<B> </B>that you called this sale “<B>Feudal</B>” and you also called it a “<B>Principality</B>” neither of which are merely “<B>name[s]</B>” or “<B>personal or moveable property.</B>” It was an “<B>incorporeal hereditament.</B>” And I hope you realize that you have to use the <B>law of real property</B> to convey an “<B>incorporeal hereditament.</B>” Mr. Boada wrote on his website, "<B>Feudal titles of nobility are in law considered ‘incorporeal hereditaments’ or intangible property and as such come under the law of property in most countries like the United Kingdom, Ireland and others.</B>" You should know that you cannot sell a genuine feudal title as though it where a “<B>copyright,</B>” nor can you sell personal names in Germany or in England. Even one of the more corrupt of the title peddlers knows this. He wrote, “<B>The only way one can acquire a German title [a name] is via adoption.</B>” (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.burkestitles.com/acquire.htm</U></B></FONT>) This is, of course, via German domestic law. There is another way, which I will explain, but it condemns you.</div> <bR> <div> The point is, the Principality of Halberstadt is a <B>feudal property</B> and an <B>incorporeal hereditament</B>. It could not be sold by German domestic law. Part of the supreme law of their land, the Weimar Constitution of 1919, prevents this. Titles cannot be conferred or bestowed any longer, therefore, they cannot be passed on or given to another person. But a <B>feudal title</B> could be sold by its lawful owners outside of Germany. Your client described how this can be done. He wrote in his book <B><U>Instant Aristocracy</U></B>, which is full of scams, a few things that are right and true. That is:</div> <bR> <div> <B>. . . German titles that were feudal in nature as long as the transaction is completed in a country other than the German Federal Republic, which does not have any legislation in force that provides a [legal] mechanism for the buying and selling of feudal incorporeal hereditaments. (p. 94) </B></div> <bR> <div> That is, in another country where it is legal to sell things, the rightful owners could “<B>. . . execute a deed of sale on a German feudal title as it would not be illegal.</B>” (Ibid.) In fact, it would be legitimate and valid if sold by its rightful owners. </div> <bR> <div> The two problems that stick out here are, (1) who are the rightful owners, and (2) did they really convey the title. This will now be addressed:</div> <bR> <div> In the <B>Deed of Transfer</B>, it states I received the principality of Halberstadt from the "<B>Hohenzollern Family Land Trust Inc.</B>" The March and June <B>2000</B> <B>Statutory Declarations</B> reiterate the same and added that those who conveyed the title were "<B>Heirs-in-Trust to the Imperial Hohenzollern family patrimony.</B>" And that the bestowal of the principality fulfills "<B>the stated desires of the Imperial German House of Hohenzollern</B>"---the whole family. </div> <bR> <div> Who are these people? They are not the junior line of Hohenzollerns, who are not Imperial or even Royal. They are a noble family and nothing more. This noble family of Hohenzollerns have nothing to do with Imperial titles or property. They are separate and in the 1800’s ceded their sovereignty to their Imperial relatives. It is the “<B>Heirs-in-Trust,</B>” that is, the heads of “<B>the Imperial German House of Hohenzollern</B>” that sold the title according to these Statutory Declarations. </div> <bR> <div> The Imperial Hohenzollerns are officially called the Imperial and Royal House of Prussia although some merely call them Imperial Hohenzollerns. Their names reflect this distinction. Their surnames are either “<B>Prinz von Preussen</B>” or “<B>Prinzessin von Preussen.</B>” Whereas the noble family, who are not Imperial or Royal are “<B>Prinz von Hohenzollern</B>” or “<B>Prinzessin von Hohenzollern</B>” except for the Royal House of Romania, who are from this branch. </div> <bR> <div> The <B>November 2000 Statutory Declaration </B>states that the “<B>Hohenzollern Family Land Trust</B>” is the same thing as, or is identical to, the “<B>Trade Consult Group (PTY) Ltd.</B>” and its address is identical to the address of British Feudal Investments, Ltd. in London. It also states “<B>that all of the other shareholders of this Institution are members and descendants of the Imperial and Royal Hohenzollern Family.</B>” And “<B>that the Imperial and Royal Hohenzollern Families [constitute] the Hohenzollern Family Land Trust.</B>” Again, this makes it clear that the Imperial Hohenzollerns, not the noble Hohenzollerns, are those that had authority to sell the imperially owned “<B>Feudal Principality of Halberstadt.</B>”</div> <bR> <div> The first two Statutory Declarations made it clear that it was supposed to be the heirs who conveyed the title of Halberstadt, that is, “<B>Heirs-in-Trust to the Imperial Hohenzollern family patrimony</B>,” that is, the descendants of the Emperors of the Imperial and Royal House of Prussia, not the whole family, but the heirs, the rightful successors to the Emperor of Germany. This is historically consistent as the Principality of Halberstadt was one of the sovereign territories owned by the last Kaiser or Emperor of the Second Reich. He was head of the Imperial family in his day. Note below that he was also the sovereign Prince of Halberstadt:</div> <bR> <div> <B>The official titles of the Emperors Wilhelm I, Friedrich III and Wilhelm II were (in German): Deutsch Kaiser und König von Preussen, Markgraf zu Brandenburg, Burggraf zu Nürnberg, Graf zu Hohenzollern, Herzog von Schlesien wie auch der Grafschaft Glatz, Herzog von Niederrhein und Posen, Herzog zu Sachsen, Westfalen und Engeren, zu Pommeren, Lüneburg, Holstein und Schleswig, zu Magdeburg, Bremen, Geldern, Cleve, Jülich und Berg, sowie auch der Wenden und Cassuben, zu Crossen, Lauenburg, Mecklenburg, Landgraf zu Hessen und Thüringen, Markgraf der Ober- und Nieder-Lausitz, Prinz von Oranien, </B><B><U>Fürst</U></B><B> zu Rügen, zu Ostfriesland, zu Paderborn und Pyrmont, </B><B><U>zu Halberstadt</U></B><B>, Münster, Osnabrück, Hildesheim, zu Verden, Cammin, Fulda, Nassau und Mörs, Gefürstete Graf zu Henneberg, Graf der Mark, zu Ravensberg, zu Hohenstein, Tecklenburg und Lingen, zu Mansfeld, Sigmaringen und Veringen, Herr zu Frankfurt. </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.geocities.com/henrivanoene/genprussia.html</U></B></FONT>) (See also from 1648 to Wilhelm II, the Emperor and Sovereign Prince of Halberstadt: <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.geocities.com/eurprin/brandenburg.html</U></B></FONT>)</div> <div> (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II_of_Germany</U></B></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> Orally, Mr. Boada told me that HIRH Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia was the one who permitted the sale of the <B>feudal</B> properties of the Imperial House. This makes sense because all the titles of the Emperor and his "<B>de jure</B>" sovereignty passed down the line to Prince Louis Ferdinand who was the Head of the Imperial family patrimony or property to his death in <B>1994. </B>His son HRH Prince Christian Sigismund of Prussia presided as regent of the Imperial family until HRH Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia became twenty-five in <B>2002,</B> and could then, by the legal will of Prince Louis Ferdinand, assume his designated place as the <B>Heir-in-Trust</B> of all the sovereign privileges of their family and the greater portion of the heirlooms and family treasures as well as the financial assets.</div> <bR> <div> Now, here is the major problem, the rightful "<B>Heirs-in-Trust</B>" to "<B>the Imperial Hohenzollern family patrimony</B>" have wholly denied any involvement or association with Mr. Boada or his specified organizations. They also deny selling or parting with any principalities to anyone. They also declared that they did not believe such could be done legally under the domestic law of their nation, which is true. That is, the Weimer Constitution abolished the right to confer or bestow titles of nobility. </div> <bR> <div> “<B>Since 1919, according to the German republican government, the nobility no longer exists as a legal entity.” (</B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://wiki-en.genealogy.net/wiki/German_Nobility</U></B><U>)</U></FONT><B> </B>The nobility was disenfranchised and ruined. It ceased to legally exist. No wonder, the attorney for the German Imperial and Royal House of Hohenzollern in <B>2002</B> stated,</div> <bR> <div> <B>No titles of nobility are “owned” by the Prince as the head of the Former Royal family of Prussia, or other Royal families in Germany, since the German Constitution of 1919 (Constitution of Weimar) is in order, according to which titles of nobility are no longer allowed to be awarded. </B></div> <bR> <div> This German attorney and general secretary to the former Imperial house also stated on the basis of German law was that what Boada did was “<B>definitely illegitimate</B>.” And that his “<B>commercial behavior is obviously illegal</B>”—it was also morally wrong, because you “<B>knew or ought to have known</B>” that selling this was a violation of German domestic law.</div> <bR> <div> In the article, “<B>The New German Constitution,</B>” which was published in <I>The American Political Science Review</I> in 1920, it stated, “<B>Titles of nobility, and orders and insignia of orders, may no longer be bestowed, titles now existing are to be accepted only as part of a name. The acceptance of foreign titles and orders is likewise forbidden.</B>” (Vol. 14, No. 1 (Feb. 1920) pp. 34-52)</div> <bR> <div> A direct translation of the German Weimar Constitution, article 109, states, “<B>. . . noble titles may not be granted any more.” </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.zum.de/psm/weimar/weimar_vve.php</U></B></FONT>) Another translation states it this way, “<B>Titles of nobility . . . may no longer be conferred</B>.” (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://web.jjay.cuny.edu</U></B><B><U>/~jobrien/reference</U></B></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>/ob13.html</U></B></FONT>)<B> </B>Well, if they cannot be legally “<B>granted</B>” any longer or “<B>conferred</B>” or “<B>bestowed,</B>” they cannot be given, transferred, sold or conveyed either, because they have been legally abolished or outlawed as far as passing them on to another person. The selling of what is forbidden by law is to be in contempt of the law. And to be in contempt of the law is to break the law, which your client did, but apparently you knew it and supported him in it, because you stated in your <B>September 29, 2003</B> letter to the Law Society that “<B>German titles have been abolished in all but name. . . .</B>” (The Law Society has a copy of this letter) </div> <bR> <div> So not only is it against the law of Germany, but note that the heirs to the Imperial family deny any involvement or knowledge of Mr. Boada or his organizations. Which is no surprise, because you set up a system where Mr. Boada, the known con artist and deceiver, could defraud people with impunity, because he never had to prove “<B>good title</B>” or validity to anyone.</div> <bR> <div> The Law Society has copies of all four of the following letters with the names intact:</div> <bR> <div> On <B>March 26, 2001, </B>I received a letter from (name redacted), the general administrator and attorney for the Imperial and Royal House of Prussia. He said, "<B>In behalf of the prince I may inform you that a Mr. Boada is completely unknown to him and that here exists not any business you mentioned in the name of his family.</B>" I sent this fact to you in early 2001 along with contact information so you could confirm that your client was committing fraud, but you acted as though this were nothing and turned a deaf ear to it along with other disturbing evidences.</div> <bR> <div> The Imperial family wrote me another and said: </div> <bR> <div> <B>Bremen, den 02. Okt. 2002</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Dear Sir:</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Your kind letter of 13 Sept, 2002 has been passed to me by HIRH the Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia. The Prince asked me to convey his thanks for your informations. I may confirm that theses strange actions you described are definitely illegitimate. No titles of nobility are "owned" by the Prince as the head of the Former Royal family of Prussia ore other Royal families in Germany since the German Constitution of 1919 (Constitution of Weimar) is in order, according to which titles of nobility are no longer allowed to be awarded. This is more than 80 years old legal facet which should be known to everybody who is involved wither historically or in view of legalicy and law. The Prince does not wish to take action against this man whoe’s commercial behavior is obviously illegal. As a citicen of the Federal Republic of Germany he whishes to keep distance from matters of this kind.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>With the Prince’s best whishes I remain,</B> </div> <bR> <div> <B>Your Sincerely, </B></div> <div> <B>(name redacted)</B> </div> <div> <B>Attorney at Law</B></div> <bR> <div> The following third letter was shared with me by another victim, who bought a German principality: </div> <bR> <div> <B>July 7, 2004</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Dear Sir (name removed):</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Thank you for your letter from June 21, 2004 which was forwarded to us by the "Fürstlich Hohenzollersche Schlossverwaltung" in Sigmaringen.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>I regret to say that your information suggesting that "British Feudal Investments" and the "Hohenzollern Family Land Trust" are not acting on behalf of the former Imperial Family right.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The House of Hohenzollern has never heard of the "Hohenzollern Family Land Trust" and has absolutely nothing to do with it. Neither have we heard of a "Principality of [name removed]" and strongly doubt that it exists.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>You can be assured that The House of Hohenzollern would never sell feudal/titular rights for a Principality, nor would it be in the legal position to do so.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Yours sincerely,</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Michaela Blankart </B></div> <bR> <div> Then on <B>October 20, 2004</B> a fourth letter, again, told the truth in very plain language that Mr. Boada had no contact with the people who were supposed to have sold the title through him since he was suppose to be the Trustee of the “Hohenzollern Family Land Trust, Inc.” It was from Dr. Peter Nolte, who was the senior attorney for the Hohenzollern family at the time of this letter. He was asked to write it for and behalf of the Imperial family. It stated:</div> <bR> <div> <B>Dear Mr Goff:</B> </div> <bR> <div> <B>- BOADA - </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>After having returned to Hamburg, I read your mail to Mrs Blankart. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>(1) Boada has no rights whatsoever with respect to the Hohenzollern family. We never before heard his name. </B></div> <div> <B>(2) The Imperial House of Prussia has never conveyed rights to principalities except the transfer to the State of Prussia after World War I.</B> </div> <div> <B>(3) In a list of titles of Wilhelm II in a document dated 23 June 1920, you will find inter alia "Prinz zu Halberstadt". This is only history: The list begins with the word "vormals" = formerly.</B> </div> <div> <B>(4) A "Trade Consult Group Ltd" or a "Hohenzollern Familiy Land Trust" is - to my best knowledge - not known to any member of the family.</B> </div> <bR> <div> <B>Kind regards</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Peter Nolte </B></div> <bR> <div> I sent you all of this incriminating information. If you were an innocent, and a reasonable and honest solicitor, you would have been alarmed by the first one I sent you in <B>2001 </B>and checked it out, because fraud is a terrible and ugly crime. On the other hand, if you already knew the title sale was a big lie, which you have already confessed to in a covert manner in your letters to the Law Society, you would have done exactly what you did do. That is, put me off, beat around the bush, cried "<B>caveat emptor,</B>" and threatened me for suggesting fraud might be involved. </div> <bR> <div> Mr. Boada’s story about selling the <B>feudal title</B> or <B>incorporeal hereditament</B> is merely a cock and bull story, as you disclosed to the Law Society in two separate letters, that is, that titles were not genuine, they were just “<B>name[s]</B>” not real, authentic <B>feudal titles </B>of nobility. Therefore, they were merely “<B>personal or moveable property,</B>” rather than “<B>incorporeal hereditaments</B>” as claimed earlier by yourself, your firm and on your client’s website. So you see, not only was Mr. Boada a deceiver, but both you and your law firm lied and stated, as solicitors or officers of the court, that the titles were <B>feudal</B> and could only be conveyed via the <B>law of real property</B>. (See my <B>January 9, 2008</B> letter where I quote a letter from your law firm and your words to my Pre-Paid legal attorney, Barry J. Marcus, Esq., wherein you declared, “<B>The sale of the Feudal Principality of Halberstadt was made under English law</B>” That is, that it was actually “<B>feudal</B>” and a “<B>principality.</B>”)</div> <bR> <div> Again, thank you for showing your true colors---showing how crooked and unethical and unscrupulous you really are! You knowingly and willfully committing this crime---a crime in which there were many victims. This is not the proper role for a solicitor. It is not only misconduct, it is much worse, it is a crime against some innocent, unsuspecting people who trusted you. </div> <bR> <div> I will just mention a few additional evidences I sent to you early in <B>2001</B> exposing other deceptions and misrepresentations as a wake up call to stop all the ugly trade in falsehoods and to get some help as I was floundering financially because you refused to honor your “<B>undertaking.</B>” But unfortunely for me and many others, you really didn’t give a damn cause you already knew that it was fraud and still continued to aid and abet your client’s wrongdoing inspite of the fact. </div> <bR> <div>          <B> (1)</B> The “<B>Hohenzollern Family Land Trust, Inc.</B>” was according to the <B>November 2000 Statutory Declaration</B> the same thing as the so-called <B>Trade Consult Group, Ltd.</B> and it was established on <B>February 21, 2000</B>. The problem here is, that this was a "<B>shelf corporation</B>" purchased as an "<B>international business corporation</B>" not a trust by Antony Boada in the Republic of Seychelles. It was an after thought <B>nine months after I bought my title. </B>Yet he claimed this very company sold me the noble title in <B>February 2000 </B>when it was just sitting on a shelf waiting for someone to buy it at the time. (I discovered this because Leo (name redacted) another victim that you bullied worse than you did me, had the Seychelles address for the <B>Trade Consult Group, Ltd. </B>which was the same address of the company <B>Intershore Consult</B> that sold the <B>Trade Consult Group, Ltd.</B> to Mr. Boada . This company is the source of the information below. See <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.intershoreconsult.com/cms</U></B></FONT>) Several<B> </B>things stick out like a sore thumb from this investigation:</div> <bR> <div> (a) The <B>Trade Consult Group, Ltd</B>. was established as a “<B>shelf corporation</B>” on <B>February 21, 2000</B> according to Ivan (name redacted) of <B>Intershore Consult</B> in Seychelles (e-mail: <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B>info@offshore.sc</B></FONT>)</div> <div> (b) Mr. Boada bought the company, not the <B>Imperial German House of Hohenzollern</B>, </div> <div> (b) it was an international business corporation, not a trust as claimed, </div> <div> (c) it was not the company that sold me the title contrary to Boada's claim (he didn’t own it at the time–not until “<B>late</B> <B>October or early November of 2000”</B> was it his according to <B>Intershore Consult</B>), and therefore— </div> <div> (d) the <B>November 2000 Statutory Declaration</B> that declared otherwise under oath was an serious act of perjury with the intention to deceive me into thinking that the title of Halberstadt was legitimately purchased from the Imperial Hohenzollern when in fact this was an ugly lie and Mr. Boada was trying to cover his tracks and not be pinned with fraud.</div> <bR> <div> In addition, if the <B>Trade Consult Group, Ltd.</B> of Seychelles was a trust as Mr. Boada claimed, then "<B><U>the</U></B><B> trustee</B>" would have to be a "<B>licensed trustee</B>" and resident of the Republic of Seychelles, not a citizen of the United States like Boada is. (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.seychelles.net/siba/onsoff.html</U></B></FONT><B> and </B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.siba.net</U></B></FONT>) This is because "<B>all Seychelles offshore Trusts are required by law to have a Trustee who is duly licensed in Seychelles.</B>" (e-mail from government business official from Seychelles) Again, this has to be done by a "<B>licensed trustee</B>" of this offshore sovereignty. That is, the law of this country which obligates that the trustee be a resident of Seychelles. (See the second website address listed above—it has a list of all licensed trustees and Boada is not one of them. Mr. Boada could have been a "<B>co-trustee,</B>" but not "<B><U>the</U></B><B> trustee</B>" in control and in charge of everything. Further evidence that he is not "<B><U>the</U></B><B> trustee</B>" is the fact that Mr. Boada claims in the <B>November 2000 Statutory Declaration</B> that his "<B>powers as trustee were granted in form absolute,</B>" with some minor stipulations. This kind of arrangement is simply not legally allowable by the law of the Republic of Seychelles. Therefore, Mr. Boada is not "<B><U>the</U></B><B> trustee</B>" as claimed, and he has thus perpetuated another pernicious lie with the evil intent to beguile and deceive others.</div> <bR> <div>           <B>(2)</B> In each of Mr. Boada’s <B>Statutory Declarations</B> sent to me, he wrote under oath that “<B>I am an attorney specialized in Nobiliary and Peerage Law, graduate of the Modern University of Lisbon in this field. . . .</B>” I wrote to the Modern University of Lisbon and talked to them on the phone. The Registrars office even checked the records of all their satellite college programs in Brazil and in Portugal and wrote to me on <B>June 18, 2001</B> and declared, “<B>I can confirm that Mr. Antony Boada also known as Antony Boada Carataya has never been a student in this University, and therefore has never graduated or received a degree of any kind from Universidade Moderna.</B>” This was signed by Maria (name redacted) on their letterhead. I also checked their website and discovered the Modern University of Lisbon did not offer a degree in law much less than one in “<B>Nobiliary and Peerage Law</B>” as Mr. Boada claimed. (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.umoderna.pt</U></B></FONT><U>)</U> It is especially absurd or nonsense that the Modern University of Lisbon in Portugal would teach students “<B>peerage law</B>” when this is a body of law that pertains only to Great Britain and no other country. (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage_law</U></B></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> Mr. Boada could not be a real attorney even though he declared that he was in the<B> Statutory Declarations</B> he wrote. He is such a liar that he couldn’t keep his lies straight. He claimed to have received his law degree from the Modern University of Lisbon, but this university doesn’t offer a degree in law. It is impossible that he received a law degree there. He was never even a student there. He claimed an LL.B. or bachelors degree in law in a number of e-mails and claimed to hold “<B>a doctorate of International Peerage Law</B>” on his website twice. And to top it off in his Florida attorney’s letter, he claimed to hold a <B>Masters degree</B> in this field. In another e-mail, he said he graduate from the University of Lisbon, a completely different university. Should I say he is mixed up, confused or befuddled? Or, is he “<B>a liar and a fantasist</B>” as expressed by Guy Stair Sainty, a world renowned scholar and expert in nobility and royalty. (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.miaminewtimes.com/1997-08-07/news/letters</U></B></FONT><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#008000" FACE="Arial" >)</FONT></div> <bR> <div> When confronting Mr. Boada’s Florida attorney about this claim and the fact that the Florida Bar Association does not show he is an attorney, she gave the following lame excuse, “<B>Under the laws of England, he is allowed to call himself a peerage lawyer based on his degree.</B>” That’s it. There was no attempt to state that he really was a lawyer---only that it is not illegal in England. She makes no comment on the fact that it is dishonest, deceitful and morally corrupt to impersonate a real lawyer. </div> <bR> <div> I sent this information to you and the Law Society. I’ll just mention one of your responses. On <B>August 17, 2001</B>, you wrote Mr. Branscum and stated, </div> <bR> <div> <B>Our client informs us that he does in fact have a degree from the Modern University of Lisbon. Remarks suggesting otherwise are libelous and a slur on our client's character , for which he reserves his position. </B>(The Law Society has a copy of this letter)</div> <bR> <div> Obviously, you never checked it out like a responsible person would do if he or she was a solicitor of England and Wales under the ethical rule to protect the public against fraud. </div> <bR> <div> I often wondered with amazement at how you could be given evidence after evidence of fraud and deception and still support a known scammer. Nothing made sense. No reasonable, mentally capable person, especially a solicitor, would be so unprofessional or negligent. After all: </div> <bR> <div> <B>When it comes to those individuals who engage in activities or jobs that require special knowledge or training (doctors, lawyers, pilots, etc.) the standard of behavior is more exacting. The standard expected for duties relating to those activities or jobs is based on what a “reasonable person” with the required knowledge and skill would or would not do under the circumstances. </B>(<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.personalinjuryhotline.com/negligence.asp</U></B></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> But there’s much more neglect. </div> <bR> <div> <B>          (3) </B>Mr. Boada sent me an e-mail on <B>April 5, 2000</B> and stated that I could become knighted in “<B>The Most Noble Patriarchal Order of St. Mary</B>” of the Patriarch of Antioch for $2,000.00. He wrote that this group was “<B>completely recognized by the Spanish king who is the number one ‘card holder’ of the Order.</B>” He stated that I “<B>would be winning over not just the Patriarch, but also the Spanish Royal Family in the future, and it is tax deductible. It would also accomplish a Royal recognition from an existing monarchy of your Princely titles.</B>” He also promised a “<B>a fantastically impressive document,</B>” that was even “<B>in gold leaf,</B>” and it would have the signature of HRH “<B>Prince Francisco de Borbon y Bourbon, Duke of Seville,</B>” a first cousin of HM King Carlos I of Spain on it. But when the certificate finally came, it was not a “<B>very majestic certificate</B>” with “<B>gold leaf,</B>” nor did it have the Prince’s signature as promised.</div> <bR> <div> But more important than any of that, I wrote to Domingo Martinez Palomo, the Personal Secretary of King Carlos I of Spain and inquired if this Order was truly recognized by the royal family as Mr. Boada claimed. Mr. Palomo wrote back on <B>May 18, 2001</B>, and, in no uncertain terms, said it was <B>totally illegal and lacked all validity</B> in Spain where this “<B>Spanish Order,</B>” according the Mr. Boada, was supposedly headquartered and where the certificate says it was signed, that is, in Madrid on <B>May 21, 2000</B>. Mr. Palomo also stated this Order had no connection to the royal family, which is not surprising since the King’s Catholic connections will not allow him to support an ecumenical order, especially an illegal one. In other words, this knighthood is totally bogus. This was confirmed and validated by the officially recognized Spanish King of Arms, Don Vicente De Cadenas y Vicent who wrote me from Madrid on <B>November 29 2001</B>. The Spanish Justice Department recommended I contact this man. So much for Mr. Boada’s honesty and credibility. He again fell on his sword and come up with egg on his face. No wonder this knighthood never has and never will be endorsed by the <B>International Commission on Orders of Chivalry </B>because it is a fake, the fabricated invention of a con man. (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>www.icocregister.org</U></B></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> And what was your response to all of this? You wrote that “<B>the Patriarch of Antioch has never been located in Madrid,</B>” yet the document boldly declared that it was signed in <B>Madrid</B> on <B>May 21, 2000</B>, by the Patriarch of Antioch. The certificate was written in Spanish. And yet it had British Feudal Investments, Ltd.’s London address on the tubular container as a return address, while it was sent from Lake Worth, Florida just a few miles from Boada’s Palm Beach, Florida office. (This was in your <B>August 17, 2001</B> letter to Bill Branscum. The Law Society has a copy of this letter)</div> <bR> <div> Contradictory, obviously! And what was your explanation for this? Being scared of the fact that this can be construed as mail fraud in the US, you wrote, <B>“. . . that documents were sent from Lake Worth only indicates our client [Boada] was in Florida on holiday. . . .</B>” (Ibid.) Which is totally ludicrous as Boada is a resident of the State of Florida, has a Florida State driver’s license and address and claimed a Palm Beach, Florida office as well as in London on his old website for years. Not only does Boada lie, but so do you.</div> <bR> <div> Mr. Branscum’s reaction to this letter of yours and the fact that you asked for information I already sent you plus some more, when you never checked out any of the alarming and disconcerting facts I already sent was therefore appropriate. He knew there was no sincerity in your letter. Truly interested or concerned people do not give lame excuses and manifest arrogance. He wrote:</div> <bR> <div> <B>Do not expect me to spend a lot of time corresponding with these mutts and explaining to them that they are full of crap - they know that already. . . . I am not going to waste your money jumping thru hoops for this character. You have been doing that for some time now to no effect I can see. </B>(Ibid.)</div> <bR> <div> Past behavior spoke louder than words could ever do that you had no intention to do anything right. You were totally reprobate in attitude and disposition and for all I know you still are.</div> <bR> <div>           <B>(4)</B> Before I knew that the <B>Trade Consult Group, Ltd.</B> that supposedly sold me the feudal title was merely a “<B>shelf corporation</B>”---a corporation created and left on the shelf for someone to buy and that Mr. Boada deceitfully bought it nine months after the fact, after this company supposedly sold me the title, you were shown some stock certificates in early 2001. For on <B>February 6, 2001</B> you wrote that you had "<B>seen four share certificates [of the Trade Consult Group, Limited] issued in the </B><B><U>names</U></B><B> of the </B><B><U>Hohenzollens</U></B><B> [not von Preussens].</B>" You here revealed that the stockholders are "<B>Hohenzollerns,</B>" not "<B>von Preussens.</B>" In other words, you actually revealed that these "<B>shareholders</B>" are not members of the "<B>Imperial and Royal House of Prussia</B>" as claimed. This same statement was reiterated on <B>April 27, 2001</B> in para. 4 that "<B>this firm verified sight of four share certificates issued in the</B><B><U> names</U></B><B> of </B><B><U>Hohenzollerns</U></B><B>. . . .</B>" And in Mr. Boada's letter of <B>March 5, 2003</B>, twice on page 21, he mentioned that they reaffirmed "<B>that the Hohenzollern Family were, in fact, the holders of the stock certificates. . . .</B>" Note that it did not say the Imperial Hohenzollerns, but their<B> names</B> were "<B>Hohenzollen.</B>" This is really significant. It is a dead give-away of fraud, because, as stated before, it is a historical fact that the Hohenzollerns have no legal right to any one of the Emperor's titles. They are not “<B>members and descendants of the Imperial and Royal Hohenzollern Family.</B>” Remember the <B>March and June 2000 Statutory Declarations</B> declare that those who conveyed the titles were "<B>Heirs-in-Trust to the Imperial Hohenzollern family patrimony.</B>" The Imperial and Royal Family--the senior and ruling family, the only ones who are Imperial are all, without exception "<B>von Preussen</B>" by name. The are the only ones who have any legitimate “<B>de jure</B>” claim, under international law, to any Imperial feudal title. So when you made the statement that the certificates were “<B>in the names of Hohenzollern,</B>” you revealed that they were not “<B>members and descendants of the Imperial and Royal Hohenzollern Family.</B>” Imperial Hohenzollerns do not go by the name Hohenzollern. Their legal surnames are “<B>Prinz or Prinzessin von Preussen.</B>” Here again, the fraud was unwittingly unveiled. Contradictions abound if one is not careful in his lies.</div> <bR> <div> I could go on and on with evidence of fraud, but I mentioned only a few of the ones I sent to you early one to forewarn you that the terrible and ugly crime of fraud was occurring.</div> <bR> <div> I just couldn’t understand why you never checked any of this evidence out. This was extremely serious and heavy. Why it seemed to mean nothing to you that your client was probably a scammer, I just couldn’t comprehend. I sent you so many things that demonstrated there was something very seriously wrong with your client---that he was in all likelihood a con artist, but you didn’t seem to care that innocent, unsuspecting people were being robbed and cheated by him. Not in the least. I couldn’t understand why you removed all the rules that would protect buyers and gave all the balance of power to your client, who was a charlatan, to do anything he wanted to. A con artist cons people---that is his stock and trade. What else would he do?</div> <bR> <div> But now I know why you never attempted to do what was reasonable or ethically and morally right. Now I know why you never wanted to clear your name and prove “<B>good title.</B>” Now I know why you refused to fulfill your legally binding guarantee or “<B>undertaking</B>” to me. Because by your own admission in the two letters you sent to the Law Society, you admitted that you knew that the <B>feudal titles</B> of nobility Mr. Boada was selling were fakes---you let it out that you knew all the while that they were just “<B>name[s],</B>” not real, genuine and true titles of <B>feudal</B> significance that held land connected rights.</div> <bR> <div> This explains why you would do anything, ruin or jeopardize your own business, lie, distract, change the subject, present lame excuses, beat around the bush, attack or threaten me, anything, but address the core issue of proof that you were an honest man and who ran an ethical and circumspect business. You were trying to hide something, because you had something really ugly to hide---a major crime you admittedly knew all about.</div> <bR> <div> Kevin Lindeberg, a well-known Australian solicitor hit the nail on the head when he wrote about how solicitors should be. It is now called the Lindeberg doctrine. I will merely use some of his words and phrases below and apply it to you. </div> <bR> <div> Mr. Pitts-Tucker, you should be “<B>governed</B>” by law and obligated “<B>to obey the law</B>,” because you have “<B>a higher moral and professional duty</B>” to do such. You are supposed to be a “<B>font of justice</B>” and “<B>act lawfully</B>” with fairness and equity. As a public servant, you should be setting the “<B>benchmarks.</B>” You, in fact, advertised on your website you offered “<B>the highest standards of excellence and integrity</B>” in the field. <B>“. . . The prestige or trust which the people hold</B>” in you should be used for good “<B>to always act lawfully with the utmost probity and fair dealing.</B>” (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>http://lists.archivists.org.au/pipermail/archivists</U></B></FONT></div> <div> <B><U>.org.au/aus-archivists/2002-April/003030.html</U></B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) </FONT></div> <bR> <div> You should not have used your public trust for purposes of misconduct or to gain unclean money because of unclean acts. I and so many others trusted Mr. Boada, a con artist, chiefly because, you were involved as the one who does the “<B>conveyances</B>.” We relied on you to fulfill all the obligations of the law including those designed to protect the purchaser in receiving a “<B>good and marketable title</B>” to the property we purchased. We did not expect that you would set up a scheme to allow your client to rob us. </div> <bR> <div> Your horrid neglect was an act of malicious and/or reckless disregard for the lives of your fellow man. It caused perhaps several hundred people to be victims of a theft of “<B>good title</B>” to their purchases, which mean they ended up owned nothing for all the money they spent. This is such a reprehensible crime that you should be required to either provide “<B>good title</B>” now or lose your license to practice on a permanent basis, and be blackballed from ever practicing again.</div> <bR> <div> In addition, if you can’t do anything honorable or meritorious after such depravity, you should go to prison where you can no longer be a predator or support and encourage scams and confidence games. What you have done was despicable, but I don’t think you will ever accept that and really honestly change. I picture you as being defiant to the end, only that kind of behavior makes you especially unworthy and most unsuitable to be a solicitor, so it wouldn’t be too wise of a strategy to follow.</div> <bR> <div> If you do actually have a change of heart, which isn’t too likely unless you are forced to, start making amends. I don’t need money. All I want is for you to either prove “<B>good title</B>” and fulfill your “<B>undertaking</B>” to me, or go to prison as far as I am concerned. But I am open to alternatives.</div> <bR> <div> I expect you to contact me to come to an amiable resolution within two weeks.</div> <bR> <div> Sincerely yours, </div> <bR> <div> <B>f you have been victimized by Mr. Boada, Mr. Williams or Mr. Pitts-Tucker, it’s time to make criminal complaints and sue them for the detestable things they have done to you and many others. It’s like the saying, “United we stand divided we fall.” Only when the authorities see that hundreds have actually been robbed and cheated, will they put a priority on this serious case. Go to “</B><A HREF="id58.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Answer"><U><B>The Answer</B></U></A><B>” for more information.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Please read the "</B><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="id33.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Disclaimer"><U><B>Disclaimer.</B></U></A></FONT><B>"</B></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id66.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor8"><U><B>Previous Page</B></U></A><B> /</B><A HREF="irish_and_english_baronies.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Selling the Forbidden"><U><B> </B></U></A><A HREF="id69.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Crooked Solicitor10"><U><B>Next Page</B></U></A></div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>